Mac OS's full screen mode has some shortcomings. In what seems like nothing more than a raging desire to be as unlike every other OS as possible, OS X full screen mode is roughly the same as running a game full screen (all elements of the desktop completely disappear). For people who just want to quickly and easily set an application to take up the maximum available space while allowing access to common OS visual elements, Mac OS didn't exactly deliver, and it really is on par with "tablet mode" as a result.

Not quite right. You can access OS X components in fullscreen just like you would on Windows 8: Either by mouse proximity to certain hotspots or by shortcuts.

Also, you are right that the feature must be coded into apps. Just like Metro.

Most people with the means will buy screens in excess of 23-inch. It's really that simple and something I see happening all the time. If your situation is different either by choice and/or financial restrictions that's fine too of course.

Most people with the means will buy screens in excess of 23-inch. It's really that simple and something I see happening all the time. If your situation is different that's fine too.

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

Obviously worldwide statistics will give you lower-res screens. Not to mention many people use laptops. I've been working for small IT support company in Amsterdam for four years now and I see 22/23-inch screens and up all the time in people's homes and at companies. The 21,5-inch iMac being the exception to the rule. Most really don't even bother with anything smaller. The last place I ran my internship, a large television network, all computers (both PC and Mac) were equipped with 21,5/22 to 30-inch screens. At college all computers, again both PC and Mac, are either 21,5-inch, 23-inch, 24-inch, 27-inch or 30-inch.

You always seem to have enormous difficulties with accepting views/experiences different from your own.

Anyway, here's a link to a popular Dutch computer store called MyCom. Notice how they only sell only two screens smaller than 21,5-inch? Both aren't being displayed in the actual MyCom stores anymore. I can assure you the situation isn't much different at most other computer stores.

Marketshare indicators don't support your claims, though. In fact, most places don't even display monitors any bigger than 22 inches, and in all my years of supporting people, I have never seen anything bigger from the people/places I've supported. So, who exactly are snatching up these behemoths like you claim?

What? Staples, Office Max and Office Depot - ALL have 23" monitors and above out on display. Heck, you can pick one up for under $150 on sale, that's what I paid for my 23".

I don't know where you shop, but if the big 3 office stores keep them in stock and on display, then you can bet every electronic big box store has them.

What? Staples, Office Max and Office Depot - ALL have 23" monitors and above out on display. Heck, you can pick one up for under $150 on sale, that's what I paid for my 23".

I don't know where you shop, but if the big 3 office stores keep them in stock and on display, then you can bet every electronic big box store has them.

23 inch monitors aren't the question here. The We're talking 27+. Dvorak wants to claim fullscreen "sucks" on 27+ inch monitors, but no consumer I know of owns a 27+ inch monitor. The most I see on sale, in store is 21, 22, and 23. The common one is 21.5 inches, and Windows 8 on those is nothing.